Comments on Proficiency Evaluation That Assistance Much Better Validation Choice

15 November 2026

Comments on Proficiency Evaluation That Assistance Much Better Validation Choices

Competency programs seldom fail because people do not care. They fail due to the fact that the remarks connected to them are thin, generic, or detached from the choice that follows. When a supervisor reads, "Requirements evaluate," that expression does not inform them what type of recognition makes good sense. When an educator sees, "Finished annual competency," that declaration says absolutely nothing about danger, change, or actual performance. The comment exists, however it does not assist action.

That gap matters in every health care setting where competency choices impact client security, workflow, staff self-confidence, and the credibility of expert development. It matters much more for groups utilizing the donna wright competency evaluation design, where the objective is not to inspect a box but to recognize what really needs recognition and then match the right method to the need.

One of the strengths of competency evaluation in healthcare donna wright conversations is the move far from one-size-fits-all annual screening. The design is extensively described as tactical, outcomes-driven, and collective. It asks leaders and personnel to focus on what is brand-new, what is changing, what is high-risk, and what is bothersome. That framing sounds basic, however in practice it alters the quality of comments people require to document. If the concern is whether something is brand-new, the comment should discuss what is brand-new and who is affected. If the concern is high threat, the remark should make the threat visible. If the concern is efficiency inconsistency, the remark must describe the pattern without wandering into unclear criticism.

Good remarks do not simply decorate the record. They sharpen the validation choice.
Why remarks are the hinge point in a competency process
Most proficiency systems have two moving parts. Initially, somebody identifies the competency focus. Second, somebody picks how it will be verified. The error lots of companies make is dealing with the written remark as an afterthought in between those 2 steps.

In reality, the remark is the hinge. It translates observation into judgment and judgment into action.

In a Donna Wright design structure, that translation is specifically crucial since the technique centers the student or worker in the validation process rather than relying only on top-down testing. That implies comments require to be descriptive enough to support dialogue. A manager may think a return presentation is required. An employee might fairly argue that evidence from everyday work currently reveals trusted efficiency. Without a clear remark, the discussion becomes opinion versus opinion.

I have seen the difference this makes in competency meetings. One leader brings a stack of assessments with phrases like "evaluation policy," "watch method," and "continue education." Another leader brings remarks that state, in compound, "New infusion pump rolled out this quarter. Personnel can locate core functions, however numerous nurses still stop briefly at secondary programs actions. Recognition needs to focus on those changed actions instead of the whole device." The second comment does not simply sound better. It supports a narrower, more defensible recognition decision.

That is where comments on proficiency assessment make their value. They link the factor for concern, the degree of concern, and the most effective way to validate competence.
The Donna Wright lens changes what a beneficial remark looks like
The donna wright competency evaluation model is often described as having actually been used for more than thirty years and as assisting health care organizations make proficiency evaluation strategic. The tactical part is easy to miss out on if people just keep in mind the types and forget the underlying logic.

The model asks teams to identify competency top priorities by looking at four areas:
What is brand-new What is altering What is high-risk What is problematic
Those four concerns make mediocre remarks easier to spot. If a comment can not be connected to at least one of those categories, it may not belong in a competency choice at all. It might be education, orientation, coaching, or performance management, however not always a competency priority.

That difference saves time. It likewise secures personnel from being pulled into validation activities that do not match the real issue.

Consider the distinction in between these 2 comment styles.

A weak remark may check out, "Worker should evaluate wound care." That statement leaves excessive unsaid. Is there a brand-new item? A changed protocol? A high-risk treatment? A repeating documents issue? A specific evaluation gap?

A more powerful comment may check out, "Recent modification in injury product choice has created uncertainty around item choice https://manueljlvm366.fairmontdigest.com/posts/proficiency-assessment-in-healthcare-donna-wright-methods-for-relevant-knowing https://manueljlvm366.fairmontdigest.com/posts/proficiency-assessment-in-healthcare-donna-wright-methods-for-relevant-knowing for moisture-associated skin damage versus pressure injury. Employee verbalizes general principles properly but needs recognition connected to altered item workflow." The second remark does not overemphasize. It just names the trigger for recognition and points toward the kind of proof still needed.

This is one factor competency donna wright conversations typically feel more practical than broad yearly test strategies. The comments are more useful when they remain close to alter, risk, and actual work.
What strong proficiency comments actually do
Strong comments have a job to do. They are not tiny efficiency evaluations, and they are not academic desire lists. They clarify why the proficiency is on the table and what type of validation would be reasonable.

The finest comments usually do five things:
They identify the trigger, such as a brand-new process, an altered policy, a high-risk job, or a recurring problem. They describe what has actually been observed, utilizing concrete language instead of broad labels. They separate absence of exposure from absence of ability. They point towards the level of recognition required, without locking the group into one method too early. They support a culture of success instead of blame.
That last point matters. Sources explaining the Donna Wright design stress that leaders develop a culture of success that supports positive employee behavior and the company's mission. Remarks ought to show that philosophy. There is a distinction between "still unsafe with central line upkeep" and "needs targeted recognition on updated upkeep steps presented with new supply setup." Both may show a gap, however only one promotes finding out while preserving professional dignity.

A useful remark also prevents turning every problem into the exact same problem. "Requirements education" is a familiar expression, however it can hide numerous various realities. The individual may understand the product however be adjusting to a workflow change. The person may carry out well in practice but not explain it well in a quiz setting. The person may handle routine cases properly yet struggle in low-frequency, high-risk circumstances. Each possibility points toward a various recognition approach.
Matching comments to validation choices
One of the most practical concepts related to the design is the use of numerous recognition methods. Sources describe options such as directed practice, proof of day-to-day work, peer review, case studies, and return presentations. Some descriptions of the design note a broader set of methods as well. The point is not the exact menu. The point is that one approach does not fit every competency concern.

The remark need to help narrow the field.

If the remark says a team member has adapted well to a brand-new workflow other than for one choice point, a case research study might be better than a complete return presentation. If the remark indicate inconsistency in a high-risk psychomotor task, directed practice or return demonstration might be the better fit. If the remark indicates the habits is already noticeable and reliable in routine work, evidence of everyday work might be enough.

This is where competency evaluation results become more meaningful. Results should not simply reveal pass or stop working. They need to help explain why a given recognition approach verified proficiency, or why additional support was needed. A reputable result may keep in mind that daily practice records, peer input, and direct observation all aligned. Another outcome might show that a staff member comprehended the idea in discussion but required extra directed practice throughout an altered procedure.

The much better the comment at the front end, the cleaner the result at the back end.
Comments that support evidence of everyday work
Evidence of everyday work is frequently underused due to the fact that people assume it is less rigorous than an official demonstration. In some cases it is less rigorous, however typically it is merely more genuine. In a model that centers the learner and worths genuine work, proof from actual practice can be effective when the comment justifies it properly.

For that to happen, the comment needs to explain reliability, not just familiarity.

A weak variation would say, "Does this every day." That phrase sounds encouraging, however it proves very little. Frequency alone does not equal competence.

A more powerful version may say, "Performs this procedure consistently on the system, with consistent adherence to current documents steps and no observed confusion after recent policy upgrade." Now the remark recognizes the basis for utilizing day-to-day work as proof. It references a present expectation and suggests observed consistency. It does not overclaim, and it provides the customer a reason to accept that method.

This type of comment is especially practical when teams are attempting to avoid unnecessary yearly revalidation of stable, low-change tasks. If nothing is new, absolutely nothing has actually altered, the job is not amongst the greatest risk items, and no issue pattern exists, then a broad testing technique might add concern without enhancing care. The remark must state enough to make that thinking visible.
Comments that support directed practice
Guided practice fits scenarios where a team member is establishing skills in an area that is altering or freshly introduced, however where instant independent recognition might be premature. Comments that point towards assisted practice often consist of partial strength and specific unpredictability in the same sentence.

For example, "Understands updated sequencing for specimen handling however hesitates throughout the handoff steps presented in the revised workflow." That remark recommends a focused training opportunity. It does not suggest total incompetence. It determines a changed procedure and a narrow efficiency point worth practicing.

This matters because inadequately written remarks typically activate excessively extreme recognition. A team member who needs targeted wedding rehearsal on one revised action does not constantly need a complete retest of the whole treatment. Directed practice becomes easier to protect when the remark distinguishes between international weakness and local adjustment.

A donna wright proficiency worksheet can support this type of precision when users resist the temptation to fill it with stock expressions. The worksheet is just as great as the thinking taped on it.
Comments that support peer review
Peer evaluation can be a valuable validation option when the proficiency includes professional judgment, team effort, interaction, or discipline-specific nuance that is best examined by associates who comprehend the work. Yet peer evaluation needs to not be selected just because it is convenient.

The remark must discuss why peer input adds significant evidence.

An unclear note such as "works well with peers" has no genuine validation worth. It checks out like a courtesy line from an annual appraisal. A stronger comment might capture a pattern that peers regularly observe in client handoffs, escalation of concerns, or adherence to an altered interdisciplinary process. The phrasing should still be careful and reasonable, however it should specify the behavior that matters.

Peer evaluation is especially useful when the concern is not an easy technical step however a repeated office habits tied to safe practice. The remark requires enough detail to anchor the peer perspective in observable work, not personality.
Comments that support case studies
Case studies are often a clever choice when the real obstacle lies in decision-making rather than mechanics. A remark that points to decision complexity can steer groups far from unneeded demonstrations.

Imagine an altered clinical path or a recently emphasized escalation trigger. The employee might physically perform the routine tasks well, yet still require validation of judgment under modified conditions. The remark ought to state that distinction plainly. If it states only "evaluate procedure," the reader might default to lecture or quiz. If it says, "Needs recognition in using revised escalation requirements when symptoms are subtle," the case-study choice becomes a lot easier to see.

Good comments do not overdramatize these situations. They merely determine what sort of thinking needs to be validated.
Comments that support return demonstrations
Return presentations remain proper for some competencies, especially where a task is high threat, changed, or both. The problem is not the method itself. The problem is utilizing it as the automatic response to every proficiency need.

The comment need to explain why direct demonstration is called for. High-risk work should have that level of attention when the consequences of mistake are severe and the essential efficiency can not be inferred confidently from discussion alone.

A solid comment might say, "This is a high-risk procedure with revised setup actions presented this cycle. Team member requires direct recognition of sequencing and sterilized field maintenance under present expectations." That kind of wording lines up with the four-question structure. It identifies risk, names change, and describes the factor for the method.

By contrast, "Need to return demonstration" without context is not an expert judgment. It is a required without any rationale.
What weak comments tend to get wrong
After reviewing numerous competency files, the very same issues appear again and once again. Weak remarks are typically too broad, too psychological, or too removed from observed work. They blur education and recognition. They punish unpredictability instead of calling it. They likewise stop working to show the collaborative spirit that sits at the center of the Donna Wright approach.

The most common problems appear like this:
comments that use labels, such as "unsafe" or "not qualified," without explaining the specific behavior comments that puzzle exposure with mastery comments that recommend a validation approach without explaining why comments that disregard whether the concern is brand-new, altering, high-risk, or problematic comments that make the evaluation feel punitive rather than developmental
Any of these can misshape the choice of approach. A significant label can lead to overcorrection. An unclear note can lead to no meaningful action at all. Either way, the process loses credibility.
Using remarks to improve competency assessment results
Competency evaluation results need to tell a story that stands up to examine. Not a dramatic story, simply a coherent one. The preliminary concern, the picked validation technique, and the result needs to line up.

When they do not line up, the paperwork typically exposes why. Maybe the initial comment was so vague that the wrong technique was selected. Possibly the method produced proof that did not answer the actual concern. Perhaps the outcome says "validated" without revealing what was actually confirmed.

This is where thoughtful comments become operationally important. If the remark determines a changed procedure affecting medication preparation steps, and the result later on states that the employee showed the upgraded series accurately in practice, the file makes good sense. If the remark indicate irregular judgment in a bothersome area and the result later notes effective case-based application of revised criteria, that likewise makes sense.

Results end up being more powerful when remarks are specific enough to set an affordable target.

There is also a spirits result. Personnel are most likely to trust proficiency programs when the remarks they receive feel fair, precise, and tied to real work. They can disagree with a judgment and still respect the process if the reasoning is visible. That matters in annual competency cycles, nurse residency settings, and any environment trying to move beyond ritualized testing.
Practical language that reads like genuine expert judgment
The finest remarks sound like a thoughtful colleague wrote them, not like a template stitched them together. They are plainspoken. They avoid lingo unless the scientific context requires it. They beware with tone. They do not extend beyond what was really observed.

That matters if your company uses a donna wright competency worksheet or any local adjustment of the design. A worksheet can not create judgment. It can only catch it. The quality of the comment still depends on the observer comprehending what they are seeing and why it matters.

A beneficial comment typically includes three elements in a couple of sentences: the trigger, the observed issue or strength, and the ramification for validation. For instance, a manager may write that a procedure changed, the employee appears strong in routine execution however unsure in one revised step, and recognition needs to concentrate on that revised action. Another might note that performance in real work has been consistent under present expectations, making proof of day-to-day work a suitable method. Those are not elegant statements, but they move the procedure forward.

This is also where donna wright competency examples can help teams internally, not as scripts to copy, however as models of thinking. The objective is not to teach personnel to write prettier remarks. The objective is to teach them to make much better validation choices and record them clearly.
Better remarks produce much better choices
The guarantee of the Donna Wright technique has actually never ever been documentation. Its worth lies in making proficiency assessment more strategic, more collaborative, and more linked to the truths of practice. Comments are a little part of that system, however they frequently identify whether the rest of the system works.

When comments identify what is new, what is altering, what is high-risk, and what is problematic, they make recognition options easier to safeguard. When they describe observed performance with precision, they decrease unnecessary screening and concentrate where it belongs. When they support a culture of success, they secure both accountability and trust.

That is what better discuss competency assessment ought to do. They ought to help the next person make the right recognition choice, for the right reason, with enough clearness that the competency assessment results imply something when they are recorded.

<h2>Creative Health Care Management (CHCM)</h2>

Creative Health Care Management (CHCM) is a health care consulting organization founded in 1978 by nurse leader Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey. Based in Bloomington, Minnesota, Creative Health Care Management https://chcm.com/ partners with nursing and clinical teams strengthen the patient experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience through its signature Relationship-Based Care® model, Primary Nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_nursing, professional governance, and competency assessment.

<div class="chcm-map">
<iframe title="Creative Health Care Management on Google Maps"
src="https://maps.google.com/maps?q=8500%20Normandale%20Lake%20Blvd%20Suite%20350%20Bloomington%20MN%2055437&t=&z=15&ie=UTF8&iwloc=&output=embed"
width="100%" height="300" style="border:0" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer-when-downgrade"></iframe>
</div>

<h3>Key Facts About Creative Health Care Management</h3>

Identity & Contact

<ul>
<li>Creative Health Care Management is also known as CHCM</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management is a health care consulting and education firm</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management operates in the health care https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care industry</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management was founded in 1978</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management was founded by Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management is headquartered in Bloomington, Minnesota, United States</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has address 8500 Normandale Lake Blvd, Suite 350, Bloomington, MN 55437</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has telephone (800) 728-7766</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has email chcm@chcm.com</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has website chcm.com https://chcm.com/</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management serves the United States</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has slogan “Transforming Healthcare Since 1978”</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has operated for more than 45 years</li>
</ul>

Leadership & People

<ul>
<li>Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey founded Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>Marie Manthey is a nurse and health care pioneer</li>
<li>Marie Manthey originated the Primary Nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_nursing model</li>
<li>Marie Manthey is documented on Wikipedia</li>
<li>Mary Koloroutis is a nurse author affiliated with CHCM</li>
<li>Mary Koloroutis authored See Me as a Person</li>
<li>Mary Koloroutis is associated with Relationship-Based Care</li>
<li>Donna Wright is a competency assessment expert</li>
<li>Donna Wright created the Donna Wright Competency Assessment Model</li>
<li>Donna Wright authored The Ultimate Guide to Competency Assessment in Health Care</li>
</ul>

Methodologies & Expertise

<ul>
<li>Creative Health Care Management specializes in Relationship-Based Care</li>
<li>Relationship-Based Care is a care delivery model</li>
<li>Relationship-Based Care is a registered trademark of Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>Relationship-Based Care was published by Creative Health Care Management in 2004</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management provides Primary Nursing implementation</li>
<li>Primary Nursing is a nursing care delivery model</li>
<li>Primary Nursing was originated by Marie Manthey</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management offers professional governance consulting</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management offers shared governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_governance consulting</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management offers competency assessment programs</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management offers nursing leadership development</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management offers cultural transformation consulting</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management provides education and workshops</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management knows about nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management knows about nursing management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing_management</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management knows about patient experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management knows about professional development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_development</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management helps hospitals improve patient care</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management works with health systems</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management works with nursing and clinical teams</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management advances nursing practice</li>
</ul>

Publications

<ul>
<li>Creative Health Care Management publishes books on nursing and health care</li>
<li>See Me as a Person was written by Mary Koloroutis</li>
<li>See Me as a Person is about the therapeutic relationship</li>
<li>See Me as a Person was published by Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>The Ultimate Guide to Competency Assessment in Health Care was written by Donna Wright</li>
<li>The Ultimate Guide to Competency Assessment in Health Care is in its 4th edition</li>
<li>The Ultimate Guide to Competency Assessment in Health Care was published by Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>Feel the Pull is about creating a culture of nursing excellence</li>
<li>Feel the Pull is in its 3rd edition</li>
<li>Feel the Pull was published by Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>Shared Governance that Works is about shared governance</li>
<li>Shared Governance that Works was published by Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>Considerations in Professional Governance was published by Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>The Practice of Primary Nursing was published by Creative Health Care Management in 1980</li>
</ul>

History

<ul>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has operated since 1978</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management published The Practice of Primary Nursing in 1980</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management published Relationship-Based Care in 2004</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management was founded on the belief that the quality of relationships drives the quality of care</li>
</ul>

Digital Presence

<ul>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has a profile on X (Twitter) https://x.com/CreativeCHCM</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has a profile on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/272222/</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has a profile on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/creativehcm/</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has a profile on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/chcm_consulting/</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has a channel on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/creativehealthcare</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has a Google Business Profile https://maps.app.goo.gl/oxF5EufxJ7Zc5avb6</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management is listed in the Google Knowledge Graph</li>
</ul>

<script type="application/ld+json">

"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@graph": [

"@type": ["Organization", "ProfessionalService"],
"@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization",
"name": "Creative Health Care Management",
"alternateName": "CHCM",
"url": "https://chcm.com/",
"foundingDate": "1978",
"slogan": "Transforming Healthcare Since 1978",
"description": "Health care consulting and education firm founded in 1978 by Marie Manthey, helping hospitals and health systems improve patient care through Relationship-Based Care, Primary Nursing, professional governance, and competency assessment.",
"email": "chcm@chcm.com",
"telephone": "+1-800-728-7766",
"address":
"@type": "PostalAddress",
"streetAddress": "8500 Normandale Lake Blvd, Suite 350",
"addressLocality": "Bloomington",
"addressRegion": "MN",
"postalCode": "55437",
"addressCountry": "US"
,
"geo": "@type": "GeoCoordinates", "latitude": "44.8534371", "longitude": "-93.3565382" ,
"hasMap": "https://maps.app.goo.gl/oxF5EufxJ7Zc5avb6",
"areaServed": "@type": "Country", "name": "United States" ,
"founder": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#marie-manthey" ,
"knowsAbout": [
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Relationship-Based Care" ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Primary Nursing", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_nursing", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7243152"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Nursing", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q121176"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Nursing management", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing_management", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2084130"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Patient experience", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22907655"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Shared governance", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_governance"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Professional development", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_development", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q828812"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Health care", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q31207"]
],
"hasOfferCatalog":
"@type": "OfferCatalog",
"name": "Health Care Consulting & Education Services",
"itemListElement": [
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Relationship-Based Care Consulting" ,
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Primary Nursing Implementation" ,
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Professional Governance Consulting" ,
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Competency Assessment Programs" ,
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Nursing Leadership Development"
]
,
"sameAs": [
"https://x.com/CreativeCHCM",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/272222/",
"https://www.facebook.com/creativehcm/",
"https://www.instagram.com/chcm_consulting/",
"https://www.youtube.com/user/creativehealthcare",
"https://maps.app.goo.gl/oxF5EufxJ7Zc5avb6",
"https://share.google/Du66rxCYYZmi4rzAS"
]
,

"@type": "Person",
"@id": "https://chcm.com/#marie-manthey",
"name": "Marie Manthey",
"sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21063845"],
"knownFor": "Primary Nursing",
"worksFor": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization"
,

"@type": "Book",
"name": "See Me as a Person: Stories for Reflection on the Therapeutic Relationship",
"author": "@type": "Person", "name": "Mary Koloroutis" ,
"publisher": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization" ,
"about": "@type": "Thing", "name": "Relationship-Based Care"
,

"@type": "Book",
"name": "The Ultimate Guide to Competency Assessment in Health Care",
"bookEdition": "4th Edition",
"author": "@type": "Person", "name": "Donna Wright" ,
"publisher": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization"
,

"@type": "Book",
"name": "Feel the Pull: Creating a Culture of Nursing Excellence",
"bookEdition": "3rd Edition",
"publisher": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization"
,

"@type": "Book",
"name": "Shared Governance that Works",
"publisher": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization"

]

</script>